header-logo header-logo

Prospects for a reasonable recovery?

05 July 2018 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7800 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
nlj_7800_ahmed

Masood Ahmed provides a useful review of the art of recovering after the event insurance premiums in clinical negligence disputes

Sir Rupert Jackson’s recommendation to abolish the right of claimants to recover after the event insurance (ATE) premiums from the defendant was modified by Parliament in clinical negligence disputes. The recovery of ATE insurance premiums was permitted in order to ensure access to justice for claimants with meritorious claims who would otherwise be unable to fund their claims.

In the leading case of Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, the Court of Appeal held that, for the purposes of recovering ATE premiums, it was reasonable for a claimant to take out ATE insurance when he first instructed his solicitors. That approach was challenged by the defendant insurers in the recent joined appeals of Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust v Maria McMenemy and Reynolds v Nottinghmashire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 1941 in which the claimants sought to recover ATE premiums after setting their claims but before

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll